Sr.No.128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR(F) No.887 of 2019(O&M)

Date of decision:05.03.2020

Angrej Singh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

Baljeet Kaur

... Respondent (s)

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Present:

Mr. Sachit Kaushal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed for challenging order dated

29.08.2019 passed by the Court of Principal Judge (Family Court),

Ludhiana whereby it was directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/-

per month as an interim maintenance to his wife who is respondent in the

present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present

case, an amount of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is very

high because the petitioner is not able to pay the said amount. He has

submitted that in para no.5 of the impugned judgment figure which is stated

as Rs.78,000/- per month is a typographical mistake. In fact this figure is

Rs.78,000/- per year. He has stated that total income of the petitioner is

Rs.6,500/- per month because he is working as a Lab Techician and

therefore, he cannot pay Rs.5,000/- to his wife as an interim maintenance.

However, perusal of the order which has been passed by the learned Trial

Court would show that although he has claimed that his income is

Rs.6,500/- per month but the respondent had stated that he was working as

SHIVANI

2020.03.06 15:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR(F) No.887 of 2019(O&M)

-2-

Lab Technician and was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month from

Jain Lab, Jagraon and he was also doing a private business Mullanpaur and

therefore, his income is much more than that.

Since the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is pending

and it is only an interim maintenance, therefore, the learned Trial Court has

arrived at a safe presumption that in view of the disputed question of fact at

this stage with regard to the actual income of the petitioner which was

presumed to be between Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month, therefore,

learned Trial Court has granted Rs.5,000/- per month as interim

maintenance to the wife of the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

A bare perusal of the order of the learned Trial Court would

show that it is a case where only interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per

month has been granted to the wife of the petitioner. There is statutory

obligation of the petitioner to maintain his wife, therefore, even without

going into the figures of the income of the petitioner, an amount of interim

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month cannot be considered as on the higher

side in today's time. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the

circumstances, I do not deem it fit and appropriate to interfere in the present

case. Consequently, the present case is dismissed.

5^th March, 2020

[JASGURPREET SINGH PURI]

Shivani Kaushik

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned

Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No

SHIVANI

2020.03.06 15:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh